Skip to comments.Revote today [Dover, PA school board]
Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
In a word, yes. FWIW, I simply saw this thing as a First Amendment -- free speech, not freedom of religion -- issue.
No argument there. But the case outcome did have precendent that supported the decision. What I or you may personally believe and what is case law are two different things.
Certainly you would think American citizens ought to have some awareness of how "Nature's God" fit into the philosophy of the Framers, and got written into the DoI -- which is the set-up to both the Preamble and the Constitution itself. The historical fact is American culture is profoundly Christian -- and still is, believe it or not.
At the time of the Framers, most people learned these things in church, where those who have made a lifetime of devotion and study are the teachers. Not those in a secular world.
You are trying to frame the argument on the merits of ID and the fight against what many are referring to Darwinian materialism. That was not what this case was about. That's also what the Discovery Institute is also trying to do. And the Trojan Horse I mention, while not in their materials spelled out as such, is contained in their wedge document.
God created us, the universe and all the living things and seas. But there is also scientific evidence that shows things are also a bit more complex than just "six days of poof". Some of the Darwinian theory tries to explain that. A lot of it falls into known scientific evidence. Some doesn't. And a lot remains unanswered.
But the fact remains, that ID is the Trojan Horse to move the Creation Theory back into our schools. It's almost as bad as Peter when he denied God three times. ID does the same.
For that, I'm dismayed in my fellow believers.
#####I don't know of any teacher's talking about parallel universes either. I do think that the scientific establishment WOULD be upset if parallel universes were discussed as accepted science.#####
I never said anything about accepted science. Just a discussion of parallel universes as a possibility. No one would object to that. But a designer as a possibility would be forbidden.
i.e. if you can't measure it, it don't exist..
Interesting concept.. The Shultz syndrome.. "I see nothing, know nothing, do NOTHING".. when it comes to things I don't know and can't prove, exists.. LoL..
The question is why would this be relevant at the high school level. Would it be part of a general discussion of group differences?
So your answer to the left's PC is to insert your own?
Your PC isn't any better than theirs. Better to eliminate PC entirely.
I can't imagine how you derived this conclusion from what I wrote.
Actually, there are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary and those who don't.
I know of no scientist in their right mind who would make that claim. There is indeed a large void in our knowledge. The void is filled either with the supernatural or the undiscovered or both. But to say that science can discern between the the supernatural & undiscovered is dishonest. Such things lie outside the province of science and, while they make for interesting conversation, don't belong in a science curriculum.
If it ain't testable, it ain't science.
####Parallel universes is scientific speculation, though I doubt very seriously if most scientists would think it should be discussed in a classroom. The Designer is a theological speculation.####
How is discussion of a parallel universe scientific if it such a universe can't be observed, measured, falsified, etc., by the standards you fellows have set up for science to follow?
Personally, I don't think much time should be spent on discussing parallel universes, but it wouldn't bother me if they were discussed a little. Nor do I think much time needs to be spent on discussing a possible designer, but I see no reason to forbid it.
Indeed, there are two separate issues involved. On the one hand, the intelligent design movement seeks to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition.
On the other hand is the intelligent design hypothesis which must stand or fall on its own merits: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
The issue of motive of the supporters (on any side) is a legal sidebar. And as you have so clearly explained - whether in law, policy or education - one can speak of God and yet neither promote nor establish a religion.
In the end, the Supreme Court will clean up the mess it created with the Lemon decision.
#####The question is why would this be relevant at the high school level. Would it be part of a general discussion of group differences?#####
It wouldn't be discussed at all. It's generally forbidden. If it can't be discussed at Harvard how can it be discussed in Public School #32?
I think my claim is evidenced by the fact that there is an enormous bulwark against teaching anything contrary to evolution in the public schools.
How do you know?
Let us assume all the above is true. Given that there is no objective measure for "design" and "purpose", as established previously and demonstrable mathematically, of what use is your definition in demonstrating intelligent design?
Remember, just because P implies Q does not make the assertion that Q implies P a valid construction. Elementary first-order logic.
#####So your answer to the left's PC is to insert your own?#####
No, I'm not for censoring science at all. But there are leftist groups who are, and who get away with it.
####Your PC isn't any better than theirs.#####
If I had any PC, I'd agree.
#####Better to eliminate PC entirely.#####
And how do we measure pain/pleasure, love/hate, joy/sorrow just to name a few qualia?
"How do you know?"
Because God can't be observed, directly or indirectly. :)
All qualia are grounded in physical, measurable phenomona. How directly and precisely one measures it is a function of technical capability.